airwalk wrote:When the LEO's choose to bother with an animal complaint at all...they typically cause far more problems than they solve. If they realize what they are looking at, they screw up the evidence and/or make moves that freezes the investigation completely.

While I may agree with you personally, the local code provides for the acquisition of a dog license and offers an opportunity for a multiple dog license if they have enough dogs to save money that way. If they don't want an inspection, then simply license each dog individually and that goes away. If you wish to participate in a multiple dog license program, you are obligated to permit an inspection to ensure that you have and use the ability to provide (at least) minimum care standards.

While you may consider them retarded, I can quite assure you the local media and animal lovers are the first to point fingers at local ACO's and complain that more should be done. of course they have no desire to pay for that more..but it should be done.

And of course the second you start aggressively showing up at their door, checking their property and potentially seizing their dogs without so much as reasonable suspicion, all of a sudden proactivity isn't such a good idea. It never is when you're the one whose rights are being violated.

Personally, I don't care how good a person a government employee is or whether or not they work hard and are good at their job. Government is force and is never to be trusted.

Demo Dick

"My first priority will be to reinstate the assault weapons ban PERMANENTLY as soon as I take office...I intend to work with Congress on a national no carry law, 1 gun a month purchase limits, and bans on all semi-automatic guns."-Barack Obama"When in doubt, whip it out."-Nuge

airwalk wrote:Okay, I'm not sure what I did to warrant that response. I am not denigrated you, I just suggested that perhaps they are noting more than it appears

Never mind, I'm out this conversation is only going to piss me off.

You're right, that was bitchy and I didn't want to be bitchy so I apologize. However, I'm sure there are big differences from AC to AC...different states, counties and cities. I personally work and live in the same county and so I *do* in fact think I'm qualified to state my observances. If you don't agree that I am then we'll have just disagree and I'm totally ok with that.

~Jeanine

You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.

DemoDick wrote:And of course the second you start aggressively showing up at their door, checking their property and potentially seizing their dogs without so much as reasonable suspicion, all of a sudden proactivity isn't such a good idea. It never is when you're the one whose rights are being violated.

Personally, I don't care how good a person a government employee is or whether or not they work hard and are good at their job. Government is force and is never to be trusted.

Demo Dick

You are absolutely correct, but of course they never see the conflict in their position because they are upstanding citizens and everyone else is not.

I also happen to agree with you about overuse of government force. However, as long as the legislature and constituents decide that there should be minimum standards of care for those keeping animals and that those standards should be enforceable, we continue to do the job we were hired to do.

airwalk wrote:Jeanine you're right there are vast differences. I was only suggesting that sometime we see what we expect to see rather than the little things.

Noted, thank you. This is the exact same AC that refused to come out and take a report when I was attacked by that Saint because, 'it wasn't a Pit Bull'. *sigh* I'm sure it could be a funding/too much work/not enough staff issue but still.

~Jeanine

You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.

This is all just making me tired and sad. Jeanine, it is really sadly and painfully obvious that in missing out on get togethers and discussion, you have become pretty far removed from what is involved in becoming a new DRAW volunteer. First, here is a page on our on website I am guessing you are unaware of. Which we had a meeting about (discussed both before and after on Ucare about 3 or 4 years ago, deaths of the Moms has clouded my time perception)http://drawrescue.webs.com/workformsforrescue.htm

As for home checks, we use a home check checklist for people who do not already know what we are looking for. I am sure you have seen those at some point on the different forums. Sometimes we simply don't have a volunteer available in a particular area so either an animal control officer or volunteer is pretty sufficient as long as they know what we are looking for.

I really wish this had not been turned into a public circus where I ended up feeling the need to defend our rescue practices. I certainly do not take adding foster homes lightly. And especially not one doing multiple dogs. Especially puppies. I have been consistently involved with her dogs from day one. I am completely aware of your busy schedule making it impossible for you to be involved in day to day dealings. It has been that way from the start. And that has always been ok for everyone. I have always valued your input and involvement when you are able. I am sad that 7 years of being *partners* did not afford myself and DRAW the respect of an amicable resolution or an amicable parting of ways.

There is a lot more I could say but I am not going to get into defending or dissecting what were meant to be private conversations.

Ultimately, this foster home has happy, well adjusted and ready to adopt pups. Those pups are, in fact, finding homes (two more this weekend)

One tiny little note...Elliott is a lab, not a pit bull. And he is one of two DRAW dogs being treated for mange. The other is in a private foster home that has one foster dog and one personal dog.

airwalk wrote:While I know you and I know what you meant by that...I do take a bit of offense for obvious reasons. I know what you meant, I know how you care for your dogs (thus my sending Dash to you), but the way it is written is really quite derogatory (sp)

Government employees are good enough to enforce law, enforce care...but not good enough to do an inspection or to determine if a rescue is satisfactory to care of their animals???

A/C can only enforce LAWS. And don't forget, puppy mills are government inspected as well... so we all know what standard is set by those laws.

A rescue makes up it's own rules and can enforce those rules. For example, a rescue can require a well maintained fenced yard. A rescue can require no dogs chained to dog houses. However, an Animal Control officer can not require someone to have a fence, or write up someone for chaining dogs.

No matter what the Animal Control Officer's personal opinion of the place, they can only enforce what laws are on the books. If nothing is out of place with the legal requirements then they can't do anything. That's FAR cry from the requirements for most rescues.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

Violet wrote:This is all just making me tired and sad. Jeanine, it is really sadly and painfully obvious that in missing out on get togethers and discussion, you have become pretty far removed from what is involved in becoming a new DRAW volunteer. First, here is a page on our on website I am guessing you are unaware of. Which we had a meeting about (discussed both before and after on Ucare about 3 or 4 years ago, deaths of the Moms has clouded my time perception)http://drawrescue.webs.com/workformsforrescue.htm

As for home checks, we use a home check checklist for people who do not already know what we are looking for. I am sure you have seen those at some point on the different forums. Sometimes we simply don't have a volunteer available in a particular area so either an animal control officer or volunteer is pretty sufficient as long as they know what we are looking for.

I really wish this had not been turned into a public circus where I ended up feeling the need to defend our rescue practices. I certainly do not take adding foster homes lightly. And especially not one doing multiple dogs. Especially puppies. I have been consistently involved with her dogs from day one. I am completely aware of your busy schedule making it impossible for you to be involved in day to day dealings. It has been that way from the start. And that has always been ok for everyone. I have always valued your input and involvement when you are able. I am sad that 7 years of being *partners* did not afford myself and DRAW the respect of an amicable resolution or an amicable parting of ways.

There is a lot more I could say but I am not going to get into defending or dissecting what were meant to be private conversations.

Ultimately, this foster home has happy, well adjusted and ready to adopt pups. Those pups are, in fact, finding homes (two more this weekend)

One tiny little note...Elliott is a lab, not a pit bull. And he is one of two DRAW dogs being treated for mange. The other is in a private foster home that has one foster dog and one personal dog.

Noted. Good luck with future DRAW endeavors.

~Jeanine

You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.

airwalk wrote:While I know you and I know what you meant by that...I do take a bit of offense for obvious reasons. I know what you meant, I know how you care for your dogs (thus my sending Dash to you), but the way it is written is really quite derogatory (sp)

Government employees are good enough to enforce law, enforce care...but not good enough to do an inspection or to determine if a rescue is satisfactory to care of their animals???

A/C can only enforce LAWS. And don't forget, puppy mills are government inspected as well... so we all know what standard is set by those laws.

A rescue makes up it's own rules and can enforce those rules. For example, a rescue can require a well maintained fenced yard. A rescue can require no dogs chained to dog houses. However, an Animal Control officer can not require someone to have a fence, or write up someone for chaining dogs.

No matter what the Animal Control Officer's personal opinion of the place, they can only enforce what laws are on the books. If nothing is out of place with the legal requirements then they can't do anything. That's FAR cry from the requirements for most rescues.

You are correct; however, when we have been requested to do an inspection for a rescue, we utilize their request information and simply report back to them. When someone calls us and requests a copy of our reports about an inspection, any deficits are so noted, whether they are 'enforceable" or not. If standards are marginally met, that is so noted.

what we are talking about here is a place that has been inspected by AC and an activist...the AC report is public information. I don't know whether they note deficits or not...and frankly neither do you.

That was the point of my information. When one decides that government employees are insufficient eyes and abilities, one should ensure you know what was noted and not noted before making assumptions.

No, it isn't. However, saying that a facility has been "government inspected" doesn't mean a whole lot to me... puppy mills are government inspected, commercial breeders are government inspected. That was the only point I was trying make.

If a rescue is giving an ACO a list of things to look for and that ACO is looking for those things and not just stuff based on laws that's an entirely different issue. However, if the ACO is going out and doing an inspection based on what is legal then, honestly, no... it's not "enough for me."

I do home visits for rescue, and I'm not so sure that the average ACO asks about what food they feed (Ol' Roy is legal), where the dog will sleep (chained to a dog house is legal), if the dog will be crated and where the crate will be, if they have other animals, etc...

Yes, your ACO's might do that but the ACO's that I know (and I know a few of them) aren't doing home visits. They are looking at people meeting legal standards for care - and legal standards kinda suck.

Michelle

Inside me is a thin woman trying to get out. I usually shut the bitch up with a martini.

I would like to post an update on this situation. The 'foster' is question has since gone on to spread some serious rumors about DRAW and basically try to blemish the rescues reputation and shut them down almost exactly a year to the date of my original post here. So. I would like to point out that my assessment of this foster in particular was 100% accurate and I'm glad that I was no longer involved with DRAW when the crap hit the fan. Sometimes all the evidence is there it's just a matter of not turning a blind eye. I would also like to point out that according to my vet (who I've now worked at for over a year) there was no phone conversation between him and Vi about a 'misunderstanding' regarding Elliot and Christine who is the foster in question.

~Jeanine

You never know when it will strike, but there comes a moment at work when you know that you just aren't going to do anything productive for the rest of the day.